TREACHEROUS TEARDROP AIRPORT TRAFFIC PATTERN? Jason Miller Settles it ONCE & FOR ALL!

[@blancolirio]

51:00 great explanation of the origin of this new 'teardrop' pattern entry trend.

[@Letsflyvr]

40:02 TFP definitely my go to podcast. 41:07 Ground School app is the best. Use it constantly to stay fresh. 44:03 knowledge recall is awesome! keep the rings green!

[@robertd7748]

The discussion seemed to be objecting to what to call the entry on the radio and not about the safety and efficiency of the maneuver. I believe the reasoning behind flying a teardrop entry is that it is somehow safer not to try to directly merge into traffic from the crosswind at pattern altitude. However, I find the concept of doing a 270° descending turn into the 45, where other traffic might also be, mixing high wing and low wing, to be at least as dangerous as a crosswind entry at pattern altitude where I can easily see other traffic. One can execute an upwind entry, and then decide to merge at midfield, or over the numbers, or farther out, to allow for a seamless merge into traffic. It has always worked well for me and gets me on the ground quickly. Not that it is relevant, but most entries at Canadian non-towered airport, I believe, are crosswind entries, called “crossfield”.

[@southweststinsons3593]

0:18 Jason and other instructors should petition the FAA to ditch the crossover and 270 to the downwind. A far safer alternative is to enter on a 45 to the upwind parallel to the runway at pattern altitude and join the pattern. You can see and give way to departing climbing traffic below you and give way to traffic entering the downwind on the 45 as you fall into line with established traffic. The FAA did not think their pattern entry through and too many variables exist between pilots executing this maneuver for it to be consistently safe. Develop an online petition to change the AFH to a safer pattern entry.

[@Letsflyvr]

32:48 what is the line? What can be done to get the learning without crossing the line?

[@DanPreissler]

I think an important topic for discussion would be the use of IFR “lingo” on a clear VFR day into an uncontrolled airport. I’m a VFR pilot so if I’m up in the air it’s clearly a VFR day. I hear it all the time around uncontrolled airports “twin bonanza at scooby intersection entering the RNAV approach to 32” Congratulations you are on an IFR approach on a clear VFR day! As a VFR pilot I have no clue where in space you are at. I have no problem when you use that on an IFR day because everyone else flying will understand what you are saying; but on a VFR day you should used the same language you were taught to use when you learned to fly.

[@Letsflyvr]

Actually as a VFR pilot I appreciate the “iFR” radio call I may not know exactly where they are but I know it’s probably not a standard 45 mid-field left down wind entry.

[@VictoryAviation]

@@LetsflyvrThat type of radio call still negates the purpose of the call, which is to advise other pilots in the area of their location and intentions in order to AVOID confusion and conflicts.

[@dustinmiller9573]

They are on a 10 to 15 mile final

[@georgeahacker]

The IFR pilots are shooting approaches to maintain their IFR currency on VFR days. Once they get somewhat close to the airport they will typically execute a missed approach and leave the pattern at a higher altitude if there is VFR traffic in the pattern. In your example, they are at a checkpoint miles away from the airport shooting an approach for runway 32. So essentially treat them like they are on a very long final for 32. I think this should be discussed with every VFR student pilot in their training.

[@VictoryAviation]

@@georgeahacker In order for a practice approach to be counted as such, it must be flown to minimums. So if they are practicing an ILS approach, they should be flying all the way down to typically 200 AGL and on glide slope.

[@Letsflyvr]

10K instruction hours! That’s incredible!

[@Letsflyvr]

“Three miles left of the airport!” Haha!

[@kenwilkerson1043]

Way back in the day, I remember being taught to enter the pattern via the crosswind when coming from the upwind side of the field. It wasn't till around 2000 I started hearing crosswind entries were a no-no. I agree with the "tell me where you're at" opinion 100%. I've never seen a VFR pattern entry described as a "teardrop entry" done the same way twice. And, I rarely see pilots enter on a true 45 these days. Next can we talk about VFR pilots giving themselves "closed traffic" at non-towered airports? That used to mean that the tower knew you were going to do multiple take offs and landings and there's currently no one else in the pattern till he tells you different. If I recall it went something like "...make left closed traffic runway 11, report turning final." Now, with 3 students in the pattern, a pratice instrument approach 3 miles out and runup area full of burger getters, I hear " ... left crosswind, closed traffic". Ok, who's on 3rd?

[@robertwelch7378]

Makes me think of that Abbott and Costello skit…. 😂

[@drbooo]

Nectar Lounge thing was incredible.

[@paulwright7239]

I flew into Sporty's for the first time last year and heard someone using this "teardrop" lingo to report their position. Being somewhat unfamiliar with the field, I became immediately annoyed because I had no way of visualizing their position. Of course I had ADS-B on Garmin Pilot but the traffic pattern is no place to be staring at your yoke-mounted tablet for long periods. Next time I will ask "Which leg of the pattern are you on?" because "teardrop" tells you nothing.

[@RogerWeber]

I could not agree more. Using the term "Teardrop" is a horrible trend. PREACH!

[@drbooo]

You did a lot of incredible Music.

[@Letsflyvr]

49:47 Teardrop!

[@maheralazzawi7814]

good job

[@Letsflyvr]

Yay for Mooney! 64 M20E. Come fly with me!

[@scott4240]

Why is this manuever shown in flight training books?

[@georgeahacker]

And is provided by this name as a pattern entry procedure in Foreflight.

[@RS13076]

It’s in the Pilot Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, has been for many years. It’s only a big deal for people who want to create drama. Maybe you should study a little before criticizing a maneuver you don’t understand or agree with.

[@schnabel69]

This is just another failed exercise by the faa. As usual, one step forward and two steps back. Lets find a solution to a problem that doesnt exist. I have been flying and instructing for over 40 years and as long as everyone is looking out the windscreen and not at their ipads looking for traffic, a crossover into a downwind has never been a problem. Enter the millennial and Zgen pilots who spend their entire flight looking at their ipad worrying about traffic. Now you have two camps of pilots. One, who thinks the teardrop is crap and a time waste, and two, the ones who do it because they were trained that way. Add to that, I see so many of the teardrop pilots performing the manuever incorrectly, making a 5 mile or more arc back into the 45 and backing up traffic. Now we have two different entries being performed simultaineously. Well done, FAA.